During this week of American election debates, Charles
Duelfer, the former deputy executive chairman of the
UN weapons inspectors and current head of the CIA's
Iraq Survey Group, delivered to Congress his
much-anticipated report on Iraq's WMD capabilities.
Among his controversial conclusions is that, contrary
to pre-war assertions by both the George Bush
administration and Tony Blair's government, Iraq had
neither stockpiles of WMD nor dedicated programmes for
the manufacture of WMD. Duelfer's report did note that
Iraq maintained so-called "dual-use" facilities (those
with legitimate civilian and/or military functions,
but which could be configured for proscribed use), but
his ISG has found no evidence that any such conversion
had taken place.

One would expect the ISG's conclusions to take the
wind out of the sails of those who repeat the mantra
that Iraq was a grave and growing threat. But Duelfer
has provided a convenient escape from such criticism,
by concluding that Saddam Hussein in fact fully
intended to convert his "dual use" factories into WMD
production facilities once UN weapons inspectors left.
In one fell swoop, Duelfer has provided the ideal
cover for the justification of the war.

Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, was quick
to note that Saddam was, according to the ISG report,
"a gathering threat that needed to be taken seriously,
that it was a matter of time before he was going to
begin pursuing those weapons of mass destruction". The
UK foreign secretary, Jack Straw, commenting on the
report from Baghdad, was likewise quick to jump on the
notion of intent. "Where this report breaks new
ground," Straw said, "is by producing extensive new
evidence showing that Saddam did indeed pose a threat
to the international community ... The world is a
safer place without him."

There are, however, several problems with this finding
- first and foremost the notion of legality,
especially in light of UN secretary general Kofi
Annan's comments that the US-led invasion of Iraq
represented a violation of the UN charter and
international law. Bush and Blair have argued that
because the Iraqi government had failed to comply with
previous security council resolutions regarding Iraq's
obligation to disarm, the right of enforcing these
resolutions is implicit.

Duelfer's report slams the door on that line of
thinking, since it is now clear that Iraq had in fact
disarmed in compliance with security council
resolutions. One of the tragic ironies of the decision
to invade Iraq is that the Iraqi WMD declaration
required by security council resolution 1441,
submitted by Iraq in December 2002, and summarily
rejected by Bush and Blair as repackaged falsehoods,
now stands as the most accurate compilation of data
yet assembled regarding Iraq's WMD programmes (more so
than even Duelfer's ISG report, which contains much
unsubstantiated speculation). Saddam Hussein has yet
to be contradicted on a single point of substantive
fact. Iraq had disarmed; no one wanted to accept that
conclusion.

Charles Duelfer has to date provided no documentation
to back up his assertion regarding Saddam's "intent".
Nor has he produced any confession from Saddam Hussein
or any senior Iraqi official regarding the same. What
has been offered is a compilation of hearsay and
conjecture linked to unnamed sources whose identities
remain shrouded in secrecy.

There is one source I am certain will not be quoted in
Duelfer's report - a former officer in Saddam
Hussein's intelligence service, who was interviewed by
the ISG repeatedly in the summer of 2003. Given the
ongoing violence in Iraq today, this officer, who is
well known to me, has asked that his name not be
published. From 1992 until 2003, he headed a branch of
Iraqi intelligence responsible for monitoring the work
of the UN weapons inspectors. His office intercepted
their communications, and recruited spies among their
ranks in Baghdad, Bahrain, New York and elsewhere.

The mission of this intelligence unit was to discern
the true intent of the UN weapons inspectors.
Conventional thinking would hold that this was being
done so that Iraq might better hide its WMD
stockpiles. The Iraqi officer has long denied this,
stating that instead his job was to find out why the
UN refused to accept the Iraqi version of events, and
to determine if the UN weapons inspectors were
operating inside Iraq for purposes other than the
disarmament.

This officer claims to have intercepted conversations
between Charles Duelfer, during the time he served as
deputy executive chairman of the UN inspection teams,
and senior US government officials, in New York and
Baghdad, where a US agenda (supported by the British)
for removing Saddam Hussein was discussed. I can
confirm that such discussions frequently took place.

According to this officer, after 1995 UN weapons
inspectors were blocked by Iraq only when their
actions were determined by the Iraqi government to
represent a direct threat to the president of Iraq, a
reality the intercepted Duelfer conversations and
ongoing CIA efforts to mount a coup d'etat would seem
to underscore.

Duelfer is not an unbiased observer in this matter.
For this reason alone, his ISG report must not be
allowed to hide its findings behind a wall of secrecy.
Far from showing the intent of Saddam Hussein to keep
WMD, I believe a full review of all material relevant
to the ISG's report will instead portray a dictator
whose only desire was to retain his hold on power in
the face of a US government which intended to do
anything, including violate international law, to
prevent this.

The US Congress and British parliament should insist
on a full declassification of the ISG report, as well
as the sources used to compile it. During this
critical time in both our nations' histories, with the
war in Iraq playing such a central role in the
selection of America's next president as well as the
political future of Britain's prime minister, the
American and British people deserve to know the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, about the casus
belli that collectively got us into the ongoing
quagmire that is Iraq today.

· Scott Ritter was a UN weapons inspector in Iraq
between 1991 and 1998 and is the author of Frontier
Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the
Bushwhacking of America

A huge, embarrassing secret is out of the bottle: it
is a political reality that a poorly-described mass of
professing Christians have been the swing vote in each
of the last seven presidential elections. This
group is made up of people from many denominations and
non-denominational community groups and churches, most
of whom call themselves evangelical, Judeo-Christian,
and a few answer to Christian Zionist. We prefer the
clearly defined term from Bible history "Judaized
Christianity" to describe it. Several seasoned
political analysts now agree that this religious
super-sect will again decide the election in November,
and with it the fate of hundreds of thousands, perhaps
millions, of people.
Your writer is a qualified alumnus from this school.

Because he has announced his intent to attack other
Arab countries, the reelection of George W. Bush will
be viewed as a mandate for his war policy. Judaized
Christians are only now being clearly recognized as
Bush's principal support base. Therefore it is time
for us to take a closer look at why many
"evangelicals" have no problem with preemptive
wars.

We are also appealing for self-appraisal by all who
call themselves by Christ's name. It is not generally
understood that there is zero support for Judaized
Christian's war positions in scripture. Celebrity
leaders and pastors invariably claim they follow the
exact word of God, never varying from scripture. In
fact, interviews with and letters from
dozens of these have revealed that they can offer no
coherent New Testament support whatsoever for the
practice of "just retribution," the killing of one
man's children for what someone else is thought to
have done to a third party.

War and racial repression are, in fact, profoundly
unChrist-like, but this is not discussed in Judaized
Christians' churches. The basis for their views
toward Israel comes from the Old Testament, never from
the New Covenant; no leader of laymen we have met has
ever been able to justify bombing of civilians without
resorting to manmade alterations,
additions or footnotes tacked on to the Bible by men
with an agenda.

It is also not generally understood by evangelicals
that what fires them to think and vote as a bloc is
that, like robots, they have been conditioned to
accept the state of Israel as a world power by an
aggressive movement that was launched almost a hundred
years ago--World Zionism-and that this conditioning
has diverted them from their true path into one that
serves Israel, not Jesus.

It is time for followers of Christ regardless of
church affiliation to confront the entire politicized,
Judaized Christian movement, whose
acts find no support in the New Testament of Jesus
Christ, the Prince on Peace; its followers are
deceived or they would not follow it.

"Judaize" is defined by Webster in 1828 as:
"conforming to the rights and doctrines of the Jews,"
and Noah Webster made reference to the
Galatians, who the Apostle Paul addresses as, "Oh
foolish Galatians."

Judaized Christianity has its taproot, not in the
Bible, but in Zionist-doctored Israel-friendly study
reference bibles, of which there are now many. The
first of these was named The Scofield Reference
edition and was published by Oxford University Press
in 1908, named after Cyrus I. Scofield. It was
published 38 years before the State of Israel was
created by the United Nations' mandate, but well after
world Zionism set its sights on Palestine. "Scofield"
was promoted through American
seminaries into the hands of church leadership. It
contains hundreds of pages of small-type footnotes,
some of shade the future State of Israel as a virtual
god icon.

Oxford also inserted hundreds of "Sub Headings"
between the verses that most readers came to accept as
part of the scripture. Many of these are benign, but
others have radically altered the meaning of the text.
Judaized Christianity breaths these footnote in and
out; it builds is quack-science of prophesy on the
footnotes! Pharisee Watch will publish more analysis
in the future, but we feel we have already adequately
exposed enough to make our case, and to seal the
future history of Judaized Christianity as the most
successful hoax religion of all times.
Pivotal to this was the bizarre bending of Genesis
12:3, endnote (1).

Celebrity leaders, including Jerry Falwell and John
Hagee claim huge numbers of followers and openly boast
they control the American presidency and seek to
control Congress. Falwell, who founded the Moral
Majority in the 1980s, claims evangelicals are 70
million strong.

Bill Moyers opined that 15% of the vote and 30% of
Republicans are evangelicals. We believe Mr. Moyers'
percentages are decidedly understated, especially in
the area of Democratic voters. Southern evangelicals
were mostly Democrats for 100 years after the civil
war. Many still are, and if 30% of Republicans voters
are Judaized Christians, as Moyers
states, Democrats are not far behind. This helps
explain why Bill Clinton twice spits the evangelical
vote, after discovering his life long Judaized
Christianity, and why Democrat, Baptist, Jimmy Carter
was elected.

Rev. Donald Wagner, professor of religion and director
of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Chicago's
North Park University associated with the Evangelical
Covenant Church, and author of several books,
including Anxious for Armageddon and Dying in the Land
of Promise, believes the influence of Christian
Zionism within traditional, mainstream
churches swells the possible numbers to about 120
million.

But the actual numbers are not so important as is the
frailty of the glue that holds them together. Former
president Carter has recently pointed out the link
between evangelicalism and the State of Israel.
Similarly, Bill Moyers, despite insufficient emphasize
of the reason for the success of Judaized
Christianity, deserves our thanks for bravery in
the face of a hostile Zionist controlled media. He
said in his powerful speech to the Society of
Professional Journalists Conference:

"How do we explain the possibility that a close
election in November could turn on several million
good and decent citizens who believe in the
Rapture Index...whose buckle holds in place George W.
Bush's armor of the Lord."

(to them) "A war with Islam in the Middle East is not
something to be feared but welcomed.... One estimate
puts these people at about 15 percent of the
electorate.... they are part of the core of George W.
Bush's base support."(3)

All political camps now admit that a favorable split
of the Judaized Christian vote is needed to win. A
post mortem of the last seven elections would show
that these five presidents, two of whom were
Democrats, have taken the USA into no less than 13
attacks or preemptive bombings on weak and largely
undefended nations, not to mention many complicities
acts and sanctions. Most of those who suffered great
injury were Muslim, with the notable exception of
Christian, Serbia, which by our count was Bill
Clinton's fourth preemptive bombing after pronouncing
himself to be a Christian, and becoming President
because he did.

In our current election Judaized Christians are about
to elect the candidate who promises to destroy more
Muslims. President Bush could only have been
appealing to Judaized Christians when he labeled the
so-called war on terror (Muslims) a battle between
"good and evil," and at least once described the war
as a "crusade."

The Judaized Christian view is finally out of the bag
and open for discussion, thanks to those few,
including ourselves, who have noticed and had the
courage to speak out. Bill Moyers is correct in
saying Israel is in the middle of the problems.
Former President Jimmy Carter, a life long Baptist,
stated the same thing in almost the same words at the
Democratic convention. But we need to dig much deeper
if we are to change the way our Judaized Christian
friends think and act. This phenomenon is not a
mystery, as Moyers' words suggest. The cause is
available to all who will look, as We Hold These
Truths has done.

JESUS IS NOT JUDAIZED
As we stated in a previous article, Why Judaized
Christians Are Re-electing George W. Bush, (2) their
logic is entirely false from a Biblical point of view,
and it is enormously self-destructive. The Apostle
Paul would have called them "foolish Galatians."
Judaized Christians claim the present day State of
Israel is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and they
ignore the killing and starving of innocent women and
children deemed necessary to protect Israel from
Islam. Israel's wars are, to
them, our wars.

It is not like Jesus to shirk responsibility for what
our government does in Jesus Christ's name. Jesus
stated that those who know about evil are responsible
for it, and to paraphrase, if you even contemplate
evil you are guilty of it. This is 100% in conflict
with Talmudic Judaism, which holds you can hire
someone else to do what you are not allowed to do by
your law.

It is not in our place to offer up dozens of
scriptural site citations supporting our view that
Jesus is always a peacemaker. This is scriptural
indisputable, but it is not in our place to disprove
anti-Christ bible yarn from Judaized Christians.
Instead, it is up to those who support this "crusade"
to explain how they reconcile bombing Iraq and
starving Palestinian children with the Holy Scripture.

We challenge any Judaized Christian leader or layman
to show us where we err. We already know from
experience this will not and cannot be done. Not only
have we read the scriptures ourselves, but we have
listened to the arguments of dozens of high profile
leaders and Judaized Christian laymen who have tried
their best to dissuade us from our course. We hear
from some every day!

APPEAL TO THE CHRIST FOLLOWERS
Most Judaized Christian church members are honest,
compassionate people who will do the right thing if
their conscience dictates it. Many do not understand
their success-oriented leaders' demands that they
place Israel's interest first. Most really do not
understand the confused theology that is presented
from thousands of pulpits and lavish TV shows.
They follow leaders who promise of one line eternal
salvation without the complications of repentance or
following Jesus example of love and service. Jesus is
presented in the comfortable atmosphere of show
business, in one form or another. To this end,
Judaized Christians are being misled to believe a
monstrous and tragic lie about what Jesus said.
To claim to be a "believer" and at the same time
support the killing of innocent non-combatants in Iraq
or Palestine with American weapons or men is to take
Jesus' holy name in vain. It is to lie about what He
stands for and what He stands against.

It is a duty of every person of good conscience to
tell them the truth. Those who deny Christ's words
while claiming to follow Him should contemplate His
words about heaven and the unhealthy, unpleasant
alternative to heaven. Please do not expect Judaized
Christian leaders to like what this letter says. Your
course is to urge them to read it anyway. We
must challenging leaders publicly before their
followers where they will not otherwise listen. We
call these confrontations "vigils." We debate each
in front of his churches and gatherings. One Project
Strait team in Fresno California has picketed eight
major churches in as many weeks. We are now alerting
thousands of church leaders in the area that each on
may be next.

How to get started
You should learn how to test your own pastor, deacon,
priest ...even your own family members for the signs
of the Judaized Christianity syndrome. One
non-invasive intrusive question that will determine if
you are speaking to a Judaized Christian:

"Do you believe that the present day state of Israel
is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy?"

All answers except "No," are dead wrong and not
supportable from the New Testament, which teaches that
only Jesus is the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. You
might have to ask yourself why you have come to
believe this error? Also demand to know where your
pastor or evangelical leaders got the authority to
help take the life of a child in Palestine or Iraq?

These two questions needs to be asked of two million
Christian leaders. That will require a lot more money
than we have. Please help, this is your fight too!
Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, 2-17,
explains why you are the one who needs to make
yourself heard:

"But who is adequate for a task like this? Only
those who, like ourselves, are men of integrity sent
by God, speaking with Christ's power, with God's eyes
upon us. We are not like those hucksters- there are
many of them--whose idea in getting out the Gospel is
to make a good living out of it."

"We dare to say these good things about ourselves only
because of our great trust in God through Christ, that
he will help us to be true about
what we say, and not because we think we can do
anything of lasting value of ourselves; our only power
and success comes from God."
2 Corinthians 3-5, (from the easy to read Living
Bible)

The second debate was appalling. Not the heated
discussion between John Kerry and George Bush, but the
commentary that followed. I listened to what must have
been half an hour of “analysis” that insisted Bush did
well because he didn’t grimace or scowl as he did
during their first encounter. I endured the buffoonish
comment that because Bush leapt out of his seat
without waiting to be recognized, that because he cut
off the moderator, he would be perceived as “manly”.
It so happens I’m a 41-year-old man; I didn’t
perceived it as manly, I perceived it as impetuous. It
seemed to me a perfect reflection, in miniature, of
Bush’s Iraq policy: impetuous, irrational,
uninterested in abiding by agreed-upon rules and laws.
He seemed to me very much like a spoiled child who
insisted on getting his way.

Because Bush was energetic and stuttered less, kept
his facial expressions down to some eye-twitching,
commentators talked about his “strong performance”.
Did any of them actually listen to what was said? By
any measure other than how Bush looked to the camera,
this debate was far worse for the President than the
first.

In the first debate, conservative voters could still
hope that the US had a good reason to go into Iraq.
However, with the recent disclosure that there WERE no
weapons of mass destruction, with Donald Rumsfeld’s
admission that there was absolutely NO hard evidence
of any link between the events of 9/11 and Saddam
Hussein, all of Bush’s arguments for the war collapsed
like a cardboard suitcase in the rain. His defenders
say he didn’t lie, he got bad intelligence. We now
know this is untrue. CIA spokesman have complained
that their reports were skewed by the administration;
some parts were overemphasized while other parts were
ignored (just as a month prior to 9/11, Bush ignored a
Presidential Daily Brief entitled “Osama Bin Laden
Determined to Strike in the US”.) Bush and Cheney
deliberately dismissed the threat of Al-Quaeda while
they fabricated a case against Iraq—complete with
phony documents asserting that Hussein was trying to
buy enriched uranium from Niger. He and his
administration didn’t say we suspect Hussein of having
weapons of mass destruction, they said we KNOW they
have them, we know WHERE they have them, and we know
HOW MUCH he’s got. It has become obvious that these
are incontrovertible lies. How Bush has the gall to
stand in front of the American people and now try to
tell us that our nation invaded Iraq so that
Iraqis—thousands upon thousands of whom, both soldiers
and civilians, were killed--is simply beyond me and
beyond arrogance. Iraq is in utter chaos, Iraqis still
don’t have basic needs such as clean water and
reliable electrical power, they are afraid to go to
work—if they have jobs—children are afraid to go to
the bombed-out shells they call schools which have no
heat (and yes, it gets cold in Iraq) and George Bush
is touting this as a victory? Who, in the name of all
that is decent, is buying this? A free Iraq? If this
is freedom, I’m sure many Iraqis would jump at the
opportunity to return it to the US and get their money
back.

Let’s try something different with this debate.
Instead of scoring it on how fast Bush jumped out of
his seat or how well he kept a straight face, on some
flimsy “overall impression”, let’s take it round by
round, point by point.

• The War in Iraq: Bush is lucky to have survived the
round. He cannot tell any rational American that we
will have spent 200 billions dollars by January and
have lost more than a 1,000 troops because, out of the
goodness of our American hearts, we wanted to free
Iraqis of a hideous dictator. He rushed to war with no
exit strategy—indeed, the peace treaty currently on
the table calls for 14 US military bases in Iraq so
who needed a strategy when there was not going to be
an exit?

• Taxes: Bush is staggered again; Kerry is going to
let the middle class keep the tax cut already passed
while rolling back the tax cut that was a boon to the
richest one percent of the country. Only 1% of the
voters could score this round for Bush.

• Medicare: Does anyone really believe it’s taken Bush
four years to make sure those drugs coming from Canada
are safe for the American people and that just as soon
he figures that out, he’ll let those drugs flow across
the border? Bush takes an eight-count.

• Healthcare: Kerry wants to extend to all Americans
the same health coverage afforded Congress—but it’s
optional! If you want your high premiums and private
health care, you keep ‘em. This idea has been floating
on the internet for as long as there has been a
world-wide web and finally is being acted upon.
Another idea in circulation for years that Kerry wants
to implement is government-backed catastrophic health
insurance. Doesn’t the government (FDIC) insure our
bank accounts up to $250,000? Isn’t our health at
least as valuable as our money? Bush isn’t complaining
about the government backing the banks though, is he?
No, it’s only our health he doesn’t want to guarantee.
Right now the referee is checking Bush’s eyes to see
if he can continue.

• The environment: Bush should have been counted out.
I’ve belonged to the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife
Foundation, and Green Peace for years and for the last
four of them, members of these organizations have been
informed—monthly it seems--of the latest attempt by
the Bush camp to curtail environmental safeguards,
from “redefining” wetlands so that thousands of acres
are no longer protected to the Orwellian-named “Clear
Skies Initiative”, which actually WEAKENS clean air
standards, this administration’s environmental policy
has been a travesty.

• Abortion: I would like to call this round a draw
except for one thing: Kerry pointed out that although
he is a Catholic, he has no authority to impose his
beliefs on the voters and that if his religious
beliefs infringe on constitutionally guaranteed
rights, he has to put them aside and honor the
Constitution. THAT is the man I want for my president.

• Stem-cell research: Bush is in trouble again. He
merely repeated the world “life” over and over in the
hope that voters wouldn’t notice anything more subtle
than repetition might be involved in this issue.
Kerry, however, completely undercut Bush’s one-word
argument: embryos slated to be thrown out—wasted
entirely—can be salvaged and used to benefit people
suffering from a variety of currently incurable
illnesses.

In my opinion, it was a lopsided victory for Kerry.
The news organizations, however, turned the debate
into a fiasco by ignoring the issues and focusing on
how each man might have appeared to the average
viewer. Even on that score, by the way, Kerry was his
usual, sharp, articulate, forceful self. Bush talks a
lot about having “firm resolve”—which, of course, is
redundant; you can’t possess flimsy resolve—but
everything he said sounded scripted, every word slid
out of his mouth as though a spin doctor had greased
it. The only way that a voter can actually choose Bush
over Kerry in this election is if the voter doesn’t
believe Kerry will deliver what he has promised. And
if we are going to discuss credibility, consider this:
we threw Nixon out of office because he lied about
spying on George McGovern. We put Bill Clinton on
trial for lying about having sex with an intern. Are
we going to re-elect George Bush after he and his
administration shamelessly lied to get our nation into
a war that has cost thousands of lives and billions of
dollars?

If offended you with my opinion, please understand
that was not my intention and you are free to offend
me with yours.